Skip to main content

View Diary: Protesting at Walmart results in forcible arrest-Video (51 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Nothing to do with protests (11+ / 0-)

    According to the news story,  the officers told her a few times which way she could and could not go (it seems they perceived her as trying to bypass the lines), and she persisted in going past the officer, they tried to escort her out and she began throwing merchandise and pulling away from the officer escorting her out:

    Officers said Chavez was seen approaching the crowded checkout lines. She attempted to bypass the long lines and walk past the officer controlling the lines.

    Chavez said she was trying to find her sister-in-law and explained what happened a different way.

    "I came back and the lines kind of moved and I couldn’t find her. Her cellphone wasn’t working, the battery had died. This cop’s in front of me and he’s like 'no you can’t go, you need to go the other way,'” said Chavez. “I’m like 'I’m just looking for my sister' and he’s like ‘no you have to go that way’ I’m like ‘but she’s here, I need to find her.’”

    The officers told her she needed to follow the flow of checkout lines. Chavez looked at the officer said “OK” and then again attempted to physically walk past the officer redirecting her. Chavez was told several more times to get in line but police said she refused and began screaming causing a larger scene and disturbing other customers.

    Officer said they attempted to escort Chavez out of the store, when she began throwing the items she was carrying on the floor and pulling away from the officer.

    “I’ve never been in that situation. And for him to have me on the floor with all his body weight on me was very, very traumatic. I was yelling, screaming, saying ‘I didn’t do anything; I just want to go home; Please let me go,’" Chavez described.
    Several officers were working detail at Walmart during the incident and several more responded to the call.
    Chavez was charged with disorderly conduct and resisting an officer without violence. She was released from the Seminole County Jail at about 4:20 a.m. Friday on $550 bond.

    Of course, you'll never get the final story in something like this, but I don't see any link whatsoever to the protesters.  It's pretty clear she was a shopper.  
    •  Because the police are always honest. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      suesue

      Everytime.

      "Til you're so fucking crazy you can't follow their rules" John Lennon - Working Class Hero

      by Horace Boothroyd III on Fri Nov 23, 2012 at 11:53:24 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  What? (6+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        johnny wurster, jrooth, IndieGuy, Smoh, VClib, rb608

        The news report gave the officers' side, and interviewed her.  The story is based in part on what she said.  That's about the best the news story can do right now.  

        There's no mention by either the police -- or her -- that this had anything to do with the protests, as your title indicates.

        •  Even if you are right. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          suesue

          It does not excuse the level of force used in the moments on the video. None of her actions justify the force he is using on her.

          "Til you're so fucking crazy you can't follow their rules" John Lennon - Working Class Hero

          by Horace Boothroyd III on Fri Nov 23, 2012 at 12:19:16 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  We don't know that because (5+ / 0-)

            the video doesn't show what she did before that.  And that what is the crucial fact in determining whether the force is justified or not. You may be right, you may not -- you can't draw that conclusion from the video.  

            •  No it is not. (0+ / 0-)
              And that what is the crucial fact in determining whether the force is justified or not

              Properly trained officers
              will only use the amount of force needed at that moment for that situation. To exceed that is excessive force. This is according to Federal law enforcement standards.

              You no not of what you speak.

              "Til you're so fucking crazy you can't follow their rules" John Lennon - Working Class Hero

              by Horace Boothroyd III on Fri Nov 23, 2012 at 12:34:19 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I'm a lawyer, I understand that. (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                notrouble, IndieGuy, VClib, rb608

                You can't know what force was needed until you see what she did BEFORE they applied the force.  The police CAN use force if that is necessary to subdue someone who is violent or very disruptive, or if that is necessary to prevent the person from escaping their grasp, or if if that is necessary to make an arrest (i.e., if the person is not voluntarily submitting to arrest).   If those kinds of things happen, a police office is probably justified, in response to that behavior, in throwing someone on the ground, and getting on top of them to handcuff them.  

                We don't know if any of those things happened here.  So, we don't know if the force is justified or not.  The fact that, after the police officer was on top of her and handcuffing her, she was not disruptive or escaping does not tell us what, if anything, she did BEFORE she was on the ground with the police officer on top of her.  It is usually the case that AFTER you apply the force, the other person is subdued -- that's the whole purpose for the force in the first place.

              •  Just to address the force issue (6+ / 0-)

                because if she discarded the merchandise, not stealing, I'd let her walk out the door. I did weekend work at a Ski Resort on the Ski Patrol. One training scenario that get regularly into the rotation is the Customer that turns belligerent as a result of Head Injury. I had one Female Patroller,  who was maybe 5 ft and 90 lbs, I'm 5 - 10 and 170 lbs, play the victim. In trying to keep her calm and still, the very best I could do was while she was face down, keep one hand on the center of her back and use one hand to hold one of her arms out so she couldn't get up. It was a stalemate at that point until back up arrived. She was serious about her role playing. If someone is not compliant, it takes more than one person.

            •  well (0+ / 0-)
              Chavez was charged with disorderly conduct and resisting an officer without violence.
              So it certainly doesn't seem like there was a need to sit on her.
              •  We just don't know. (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                VClib, rb608

                Resisting an officer is resisting an officer (if it is true that she did that).  If police are trying to move you, or arrest you, and you resist, that may justify them doing what is necessary to get you to submit.  If a person resists, the police don't have to say, "pretty please?" If a person resists (depending on the situation), the police can use that force necessary to physically make the person submit.  

                 If a police officer stops you while you are driving, and you get out of your car, and they end up telling you that you are under arrest, and you basically say "no" and try to get away (like if he's holding you and you try to pull away from his grasp), that's resisting without violence.  In that case, that police officer is going to throw you  down over the hood of your car (not in a nice way), get on your back, and hand cuff you from behind.  That's pretty much what it looks like this police officer did here.  What we don't know is whether she did or did not do anything to justify that response.

        •  Ever consider, or did it ever come to your mind, (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Horace Boothroyd III, suesue

          Why the cops were there, dealing with shoppers when no protest were involved? Why were cops, dealing with shoppers? As usual, they were there to support WalMart. If no protest, you mean to tell me this woman or anyone else doesn't have a right to simply look for her sister in law? Why were the cops controlling the flow of customers in checkout lines?

          •  Seriously? (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Catte Nappe, Smoh, VClib, rb608

            When there have been people injured and killed in Black Friday due to the behavior of the crowds -- remember the worker trampled in the Black Friday stampede -- the store was correctly criticized -- and sued, if I remember correctly -- for NOT hiring extra police as security to handle the crowds.  

            •  So now walmart not only use our taxpayer paid for (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              suesue

              social safety net because they pay their employees shit wages, now our taxpayer paid for police force is I, because WalMart want hire enough people to take care of their own freaking business?

              •  You don't pay for the police (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Catte Nappe, Smoh, VClib, rb608

                at the events.  Wal-Mart does.  Virtually every city allows off-duty police officers to work security for private events -- weddings, large parties, charity events, concerts, even high school dances.  The event-giver pays the costs of having those officers attend.  It's essentially overtime pay for the officers -- they don't have to do it, but many want to because of the extra money.  

              •  Taxpayers aren't paying for it (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                coffeetalk, Smoh, VClib, rb608

                LEOs sign up to do these gigs off duty for extra money, (and sometimes because they like to be part of certain events like concerts and such.)

                "...you can’t find any oxygen from outside the aircraft to get in the aircraft, because the windows don’t open. I don’t know why they don’t do that. It’s a real problem." Mitt Romney

                by Catte Nappe on Fri Nov 23, 2012 at 01:53:30 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

      •  Because the police are always dishonest. (0+ / 0-)

        Everytime.

        Saying it your way makes as much sense.  And, ironically, is just as honest.

      •  Horace - you should edit your title (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        coffeetalk, Catte Nappe, rb608

        This event does not seem to be related to any protest.

        "let's talk about that"

        by VClib on Fri Nov 23, 2012 at 02:50:45 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Then there's the man shouting (4+ / 0-)

      "She didn't do anything"

      Meanwhile, when did it become necessary to sprawl women on the floor, kneel/sit on them and have more than one officer forcibly hand cuff unarmed women?  

      It's difficult to be happy knowing so many suffer. We must unite.

      by War on Error on Fri Nov 23, 2012 at 12:03:06 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  According to the news story (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        johnny wurster, VClib, rb608

        she had already tried to get around them and began screaming and disturbing those around her.  So they were escorting her out when she began to pull away from them and throw things.  That's when the arrest happened.  That's the police story.

        It's difficult to tell from that video whether the police story is true, or whether the police overreacted or not, because it starts after they have her on the floor.  

    •  Having police in the store is offensive to begin (4+ / 0-)

      with. Public servants hiring themselves out to do private surveillance and crowd control is offensive.

      We organize governments to provide benefits and prevent abuse.

      by hannah on Fri Nov 23, 2012 at 12:55:26 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  With behavior at many of these Black Friday events (7+ / 0-)

        They pretty much have to have police in and around the stores. How many times have there been stampedes and serious injuries, and the first thing in the report is that the store had done nothing to provide for security?

        "...you can’t find any oxygen from outside the aircraft to get in the aircraft, because the windows don’t open. I don’t know why they don’t do that. It’s a real problem." Mitt Romney

        by Catte Nappe on Fri Nov 23, 2012 at 01:15:24 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Why police? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          suesue

          And is the store paying for our public service for their private event? Did Walmart file the permit for the assembly?

          "Til you're so fucking crazy you can't follow their rules" John Lennon - Working Class Hero

          by Horace Boothroyd III on Fri Nov 23, 2012 at 01:18:52 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Generally, the store does pay (5+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Catte Nappe, IndieGuy, Smoh, VClib, rb608

            for the extra patrols.  Just like a lot of people who hold very large private parties or similar events will pay to have a police officer at that party. They are paid by the event-giver, and are there to keep the peace, protect the attendees, and to remove any people who are asked to leave but don't, or who become unruly or disruptive.    

            And they don't have to "file a permit for the assembly."  You only need to seek permits if you are going to use public property -- like the public streets or a public park -- for the assembly.  A Wal-Mart store, and its parking lot, are not public property.  They are private property.  

          •  From my experience (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            coffeetalk, IndieGuy, Smoh, rb608

            Although the large events I have assisted in organizing were in aid of non-protit causes, I expect the situation is not that different from commercial ventures in some respects.

            The "why" for police has to do with what private security people are legally allowed (or not allowed) to do. They can't arrest or detain or physically restrain. Fortunately, I have rarely had need of that component, but police also have authoirty in directing car traffic that private services do not, and that has often been very helpful.

            As to who is paying - no doubt WalMart is. I know we get a sizeable bill for the service, although the officers are working on their own time (not on duty for the public tax payer).

            "...you can’t find any oxygen from outside the aircraft to get in the aircraft, because the windows don’t open. I don’t know why they don’t do that. It’s a real problem." Mitt Romney

            by Catte Nappe on Fri Nov 23, 2012 at 01:37:23 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Horace - no permit was needed (0+ / 0-)

            The "assembly" was on private property, with the permission of the owners. Permits are only needed for assemblies on public property.

            "let's talk about that"

            by VClib on Fri Nov 23, 2012 at 02:47:03 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  Seriously? (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        IndieGuy, Smoh, VClib, Catte Nappe, rb608

        In the past, when people have been injured or killed due to the Black Friday crowds, the store was criticized -- and probably rightly so -- for not having ENOUGH security.

        I'd far, far rather have uniformed police officers acting as security than some private security guards who are less accountable to the public.

        The stores are aware that there are going to be huge crowds, and that the crowds are often unruly (if the past is any indication).  They would be acting completely irresponsibly if they didn't pay for the extra security.  And uniformed police officers are going to be more accountable to the public than are some private security guards, and usually far better trained.

        •  The store is an attractive nuisance. n/t (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          suesue

          We organize governments to provide benefits and prevent abuse.

          by hannah on Fri Nov 23, 2012 at 01:47:49 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Which is exactly why the store SHOULD hire (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            IndieGuy, Smoh, VClib

            extra police officers to provide security for Black Friday.  

            If you have reason to believe that the event you are hosting will mean large, unruly crowds (as the past has clearly shown) you have an obligation to pay for the extra security necessary to keep them orderly.

        •  Private security not only less accountable (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          coffeetalk, IndieGuy, Smoh

          They are also far less well trained. And way too many go into the private security arena because they are frustrated law enforcement wannabes - think a bunch of George Zimmermans.

          "...you can’t find any oxygen from outside the aircraft to get in the aircraft, because the windows don’t open. I don’t know why they don’t do that. It’s a real problem." Mitt Romney

          by Catte Nappe on Fri Nov 23, 2012 at 02:09:19 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site